Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I post the evidence I have on a thread which is about collecting all the evidence to be reported to the developers.

NZTypoon and Osprey wanted to keep that evidence away from the developers, now asking the evidence to be removed and present only filtered evidence.

A verdict on this is easy to make.

IMHO most of your comments are very valid and add some evidence that were not presented in the bug report so far. I don't understand why they should be removed, especially as they support the request for +12 boost.

- They clearly show how the amount of issued 100 octane increases during and eventually overtakes the issued of 87 octane.
- They show that selected stations (Bomber Command stations with Blenheim and Fighter Command stations with Hurricane and Spitfire) received 100 octane in May 1940.

Regarding the opinion of Pips I'm sure we all will be glad to consider the the "Pips papers" as a valuable evidence as soon as they are found and properly sourced.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

IMHO most of your comments are very valid and add some evidence that were not presented in the bug report so far. I don't understand why they should be removed, especially as they support the request for +12 boost.

- They clearly show how the amount of issued 100 octane increases during and eventually overtakes the issued of 87 octane.
- They show that selected stations (Bomber Command stations with Blenheim and Fighter Command stations with Hurricane and Spitfire) received 100 octane in May 1940.

Regarding the opinion of Pips I'm sure we all will be glad to consider the the "Pips papers" as a valuable evidence as soon as they are found and properly sourced.

I know 'Pips', who is a member of this forum, absolutely rushed to validate the existence and authenticity of the papers he claimed to have discovered when asked, very politely, by others to participate in the thread pertaining to 100 octane fuel...but then again a second hand summary of papers Barbi has never seen on a seven year old thread which is closed to non-members of that particular forum is more than enough evidence to prove anything.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Regarding the opinion of Pips I'm sure we all will be glad to consider the the "Pips papers" as a valuable evidence as soon as they are found and properly sourced.

IMHO the 'Pips papers' fit in well with the current trail of evidence. After all the May papers as you noted tell of the issue of 100 octane to the selected stations (which is what Pips is saying, though he quantyfies it at 25%).

He notes that the situation eased in August with the arrival of the first Middle East fuel shipsments. This is again reflected in the August 7 memo posted which notes 100 octane is now cleared for all operational aircraft.

The fuel issues again show the issues increased in the automn, especially end of September which is again line with the 'Pips paper' and Pips statements.

I wouldn't be surprised if Pips would have found the same papers, but had an access to a more complete trail of papers, than what is Glider/lane has been willing to disclose to us. Nota bene that Pips shared his findings some 8 years ago, well before Glider had seen these documents himself.

But this has been done to the death. The devs will decide, but indeed the papers I have posted definitely support the need for the addition of RAF 100 octane variants.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I wouldn't be surprised if Pips would have found the same papers, but had an access to a more complete trail of papers, than what is Glider/lane has been willing to disclose to us. Nota bene that Pips shared his findings some 8 years ago, well before Glider had seen these documents himself.

.

I do get a little bored with these constant snipes at what I have and haven't disclosed without anything to support them.

I repeat (for I think the third) time, you can always ask for a copy and prove me wrong. On the other hand if Pips had found the papers I found he wouldn't have made his claim.

I have asked you to supply any evidence to support any one (note not all) of the claims he made. For example the May meeting of the War Cabinet that was supossed to have started the whole thing off by stopping the roll out and the fuel shortage he commented on.

The only person who hasn't provided any evidence, or even a statment on what you believe the position to be is you. You only overstate the importance of one document that I left in to maintain the document trail

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

I do get a little bored with these constant snipes at what I have and haven't disclosed without anything to support them.

I repeat (for I think the third) time, you can always ask for a copy and prove me wrong.

Well can we see the contents of AIR documents or not? We have been asking for them for three years, you REFUSE to show the whole document.

That's a fact David.

On the other hand if Pips had found the papers I found he wouldn't have made his claim.

Its your opinion, not Pips. You certainly like to misrepresent other people's positions.

I have asked you to supply any evidence to support any one (note not all) of the claims he made. For example the May meeting of the War Cabinet that was supossed to have started the whole thing off by stopping the roll out and the fuel shortage he commented on.

Dear David, you are pretending again that you have not been answered on that multiple times. I have made it very clear to you that the above is based on the documents Pips has found.

Asking me to provide the papers Pips found in Australia was silly in the first place, pretending I am refusing to supply the papers I have nothing to do with for the umpteenth time is dishonest.

The only person who hasn't provided any evidence, or even a statment on what you believe the position to be is you.

Yada-yada-yada, the usual BS, repeated forever in Goebbels style. I have made my position very clear, several times. It seems redundant to repeat it again, since your standard operational procedure in the past was, and is ever since, to wait a few days and lie again that nothing was provided, not even the position was made clear etc.

All what you have done yourself so far is keep making the same statements, ignore other's position and even your very own papers, and then lie that they have supplied nothing and did not make their position clear. Its a petty attitude.

You only overstate the importance of one document that I left in to maintain the document trail

Nope. All documents Pips and you have found notes that only select converted in May 1940. You simply ignore what is in your own papers.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Well can we see the contents of AIR documents or not? We have been asking for them for three years, you REFUSE to show the whole document.

That's a fact David.

I have shown everything that I have. I repeat its easy for you to obtain copies of the papers. Find that I have witheld anything of importance (and I will let the mods decide) and I will apologise to one and all and withdraw from the forum. If you repeat these allagations without support then I expect you to apologise and withdraw from the forum.
Call my bluff

Its your opinion, not Pips. You certainly like to misrepresent other people's positions.

Give one example to support this statement?

Dear David, you are pretending again that you have not been answered on that multiple times. I have made it very clear to you that the above is based on the documents Pips has found.

No one has seen the papers that Pips is supposed to have found, not even you. If it was that easy for him then something would have appeared.

Asking me to provide the papers Pips found in Australia was silly in the first place, pretending I am refusing to supply the papers I have nothing to do with for the umpteenth time is dishonest.

Then all you have is Pips unsupported posting.
You have
a) No supporting information that there was s fuel shortage
b) No mention in the Cabinet War papers for May saying that the roll out was halted.

It is by definition an unsupported posting

Yada-yada-yada, the usual BS, repeated forever in Goebbels style. I have made my position very clear, several times. It seems redundant to repeat it again, since your standard operational procedure in the past was, and is ever since, to wait a few days and lie again that nothing was provided, not even the position was made clear etc.

Then prove my lie (another accusation I note) find where you stated your belief. The only ones that I know of are your statement re the use of 100 Octane in France, and a couple of years ago a statement that you supported Pips view that approx 145 fighters were converted.
If you believe that its the 16 + 2 then say so and I will never ask the question again, ever. But I will ask how you support that view.

All what you have done yourself so far is keep making the same statements, ignore other's position and even your very own papers, and then lie that they have supplied nothing and did not make their position clear. Its a petty attitude.

Again prove my lie, show me what you have supplied and my very own papers. We have a different view on what certain squadrons means, that I agree but the paper trail I believe supports my view and I ham always happy to stand by it.

You keep making these statements and its time to support them

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by Glider

I have shown everything that I have. I repeat its easy for you to obtain copies of the papers. Find that I have witheld anything of importance (and I will let the mods decide) and I will apologise to one and all and withdraw from the forum. If you repeat these allagations without support then I expect you to apologise and withdraw from the forum.

Glider, (this is a bit of a tangent)
Did you order the papers from the archives at Kew?
I live not far from there and was going to order some docs. Approximately how much do the documents cost?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by pstyle

Glider, (this is a bit of a tangent)
Did you order the papers from the archives at Kew?
I live not far from there and was going to order some docs. Approximately how much do the documents cost?

I went to the archives and looked at the files myself. As to the cost I don't know but the Oil Committee file is a big one with hundreds of pages so expect cost to be high. I just copied anything which mentioned 100 Octane, they discussed other things but those I left.

I suggest going yourself its a bit special and you can ask for almost anything. Also some things that cost such as downloads of combat reports to your home are free at the NA. You can take a camera in and photograph what you want so you don't have to copy everything out word for word. The first visit is a bit of a fag as you have to get your pass but its worth the effort.

I admit to getting a buzz out of holding the original documents. When this pips thing came up one of his claims was that the War Cabinet stopped the deployment of 100 Octane in May 1940. I went to the NA and was able to get hold of the original papers, and to just handle these original papers that were at the table with Churchill and the others does make it a bit special.
These are now free on line and the originals stored but its an example.

Its a short walk from Kew underground station and well signposted so thats my choice of getting there

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

I have shown everything that I have. I repeat its easy for you to obtain copies of the papers. Find that I have witheld anything of importance (and I will let the mods decide) and I will apologise to one and all and withdraw from the forum. If you repeat these allagations without support then I expect you to apologise and withdraw from the forum.
Call my bluff


Give one example to support this statement?


No one has seen the papers that Pips is supposed to have found, not even you. If it was that easy for him then something would have appeared.
Then all you have is Pips unsupported posting.
You have
a) No supporting information that there was s fuel shortage
b) No mention in the Cabinet War papers for May saying that the roll out was halted.

It is by definition an unsupported posting



Then prove my lie (another accusation I note) find where you stated your belief. The only ones that I know of are your statement re the use of 100 Octane in France, and a couple of years ago a statement that you supported Pips view that approx 145 fighters were converted.
If you believe that its the 16 + 2 then say so and I will never ask the question again, ever. But I will ask how you support that view.



Again prove my lie, show me what you have supplied and my very own papers. We have a different view on what certain squadrons means, that I agree but the paper trail I believe supports my view and I ham always happy to stand by it.

You keep making these statements and its time to support them

I don't care for your rubbish. The next time you lie about my or other people's posts or position they have taken, the proper course of action shall be taken. You refuse to disclose the documents in full, end of story.

Also please take note for the future that I have decided not to waste any more time on replying to your posts.

[Kurfürst]

From ANA.